this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2025
59 points (100.0% liked)

askchapo

22931 readers
126 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
PorkrollPosadist@hexbear.net
replaceable@hexbear.net
VILenin@hexbear.net
EmmaGoldman@hexbear.net
SexUnderSocialism@hexbear.net
ZoomeristLeninist@hexbear.net
khizuo@hexbear.net
Sulv@hexbear.net
59
So what would Climate Stalin have to do? (hexbear.net)
submitted 2 months ago by ClimateChangeAnxiety@hexbear.net to c/askchapo@hexbear.net
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

With the fires in LA it’s hard to feel optimistic about the future. I want to be reminded that all is not lost, we need to do a lot that likely won’t be done but there are still things to do.

So let’s say Climate Stalin became Supreme Leader of the World or just President of the United States tomorrow. Whats next? What steps do we take to stop climate change getting worse and mitigate the damage we’ve already done?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Adkml@hexbear.net 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Kind of sort of. The main thing with nuclear is it can take 15 years to build a plant. It was the answer 2 decades ago. At this point we need something NOW and with increasing efficiencies of batteries and solar I personally think we'd be better off leap frogging the majority of nuclear projects.

[–] Saeculum@hexbear.net 2 points 2 months ago

We can do both. We are limited in input materials for solar and wind, and those materials don't overlap much with what nuclear power plants need.